So @BretDevereaux the other day in a @MykeCole thread we said perhaps some more scrutiny should be directed toward the Roman army. Topics arose in class yest, here's one: when did the velites--as we know them--truly emerge?
-
But Livy refers to velites in earlier books. But their use of the hasta velitaris and shield here is difficult to establish earlier. Not sure when the sword comes in either, or when this armament became standard.
Ah, this is a tricky one. I am mostly with @ProfPaul_J as seeing Liv. 26.4 as the first evidence for the velites as such. The issue, of course, is that Livy's sense of older Roman armies is often absolutely lousy with anachronisms. Liv. 8.8 is just a mess.
-
-
At the same time 'just so' stories about the introduction of a given tactic are inherently suspect. There seem to be light troops functioning with the legions earlier than this (Liv 8.8.5), and I tend to think the more mature formation of velites evolved out of that gradually.
-
Oakley suggests that the velites might just be the rorarii with a new name, which is tempting, but raises all sorts of questions. The one thing I don't buy is the suggestion - Michael Sage, I think - that the velites are a consequence of a 2nd-punic-war manpower shortage.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Liv. 8.8 is a huge mess, and yet if we didn't have it, it would significantly impact the way people have commonly written and lectured on the Republican Roman army.
-
Oh absolutely. Better to have a mess than simply a lacuna from the 'Servian constitution' (w/all of its problems) and the firmer ground of Polybius. But the mess of Liv. 8.8 should also alert us to the fact that Livy doesn't always understand the army he is describing.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.